August 13, 2007

Wow! Does she think you are invisible! But she's not saying she views you as a massive horde of nonentities. Oh, no! She's the one who is here to make you visible. She's got the power to heal you of your invisibility. Just a word from her lips...

65 comments:

This is of great substance, but when will Ann and her gang of Apologists acknowledge the fraud that O'Hanlon-Pollack article was--the NY Times op-ed touted so prominently here and in many other right-wing blogs and outlets? When it comes to propaganda, this one ranks high up there!

Hmmmm, if "the President" is so powerful and can solve all these problems, why didn't a certain president from 1992 to 2000 with whom she had quite a bit of influence, take care of all this stuff already!

What? Fraud? What did I miss? So these leather club jackets, I assume they have some sort of patch on them? Do you have to take them off when invisible, or do they turn invisible also? If I leave my wallet at home, do I stay invisible?

Hmmmm, if "the President" is so powerful and can solve all these problems, why didn't a certain president from 1992 to 2000 with whom she had quite a bit of influence, take care of all this stuff already!

Hillary says, "I think that we certainly didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe that there was a lot of honest effort going on by the president."

O'Hanlon and Pollock, who wrote the article about Iraq in the NYT a few weeks back, were touted as Bush/Iraq War critics who were now reporting progress! Ann, and many other right-wing blogs, used this op-ed to make the point ("even these liberal critics are seeing progress!"). Of course, this was untrue.

In an interview, O'Hanlon now says that not only did he favor the war and Bush's strategy, but in writing the op-ed

"we were certainly not getting a representative view of Iraqi opinion...nor would I claim that we got a representative view, or at least got a widespread sampling of, American enlisted military personnel thinking."

O'Hanlon and Pollack referred to themselves as having "harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq".

The anti-war lefties have been bleating that that claim is "fraudulent". The objection has two basic parts:

(1): O'Hanlon and Pollack have only been Bush critics for a few years now. They supported the decision to go to war, and supported the initial handling of it. Lefties apply a "one-drop rule" to support for the Bush Administration -- do it once and you're officially a "Bush toady" forever.

(2): The mainstream of the anti-war left considers sentences like "George Bush is the worst President in US history" and "the Iraq war is the biggest military blunder in the history of the world" to be sensible mainstream criticism of Bush. O'Hanlon and Pollack, on the other hand, have merely pointed out, bluntly, that the Bush Administration is making a lot of mistakes, and in serious danger of losing the war, and have offered ways to improve. A rational and impartial person might agree that that counts as harsh criticism, but obviously a person who objects to "Bush=Hitler" on the grounds that Hitler was much smarter than Bush isn't going to see it that way.

"In an interview, O'Hanlon now says that not only did he favor the war and Bush's strategy, but in writing the op-ed

"we were certainly not getting a representative view of Iraqi opinion...nor would I claim that we got a representative view, or at least got a widespread sampling of, American enlisted military personnel thinking.""

So what you are saying it that one of the writers is claiming to have written a fraudulent editorial, and as such there is not truth to what they wrote, or that it may not represent the country as a whole?

"As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq...."

This is untrue? Because this is a different statement than being for the war.Just went thru the entire editorial. Which part is fraudulent? I remember when it came out, the left viciously attacked the authors. Looking at the actual op-ed, what part is untrue?

rev-that's the way I interpreted the article and the criticism. I have had serious issues with how the war has been handled in the past. Would that make me a fraud also? When googling it today I kept seeing Greenwald pop up which, if he takes your side in something, means your wrong.

I would recommend reading the Greenwald interview, actually. It can be found here.

Danny has been cherry-picking quotes from it to support his unsupportable position. The full interview firmly establishes (a) that O'Hanlon supported the decision to go to war, (b) that he would not have done so if he knew then what he knows now, (c) that he thinks, and has said for years, that the Bush Administration's plan for the occupation and reconstruction was a bad one, and (d) that he thinks it is still possible to succeed. So there's no "fraud" here.

Rev- I read the interview and have a couple of points.1. Greenwald isnt nearly as obnoxious when the person is right there with him.2. With the person there, it appears Greenwald is able to stay on point and address the argument rather than demonizing the person. I would imagine if he did this all the time, he would have more credibility with me.3. O'hanlan defends his article, while acknowledging Greenwald's points and concerns. I see nothing there to legitimately call the article a fraud.

Sorry ... back to Hillary Clinton for a moment. I am continually amazed by the animous this woman attracts - and from seemingly level-headed, rational people. She's just a human being, for God's sake. She's not Satan, and she doesn't need to ritualistically stoned to death like a character in "The Lottery." (Or maybe you think she does.) Right-wingers, please find an identity outside this woman. It's seeming a little sad. Surely you can define yourselves by something other than your venomous hatred of her, her cleavage, her "fake" accent, her arrogance, her ambition, etc.

I am continually amazed by the animous this woman attracts - and from seemingly level-headed, rational people.

Well for those of us of a conservative bent, when the preeminent candidate for the president says things like...'we're going to take things away from you for the common good' sounds a lot like something I read out of Das Kapital. HRC may be running to the middle and she has impressed a lot of people on the right, however, I don't trust her as far as I could toss a deviled egg at Althouse.

I don't care about her ambition, arrogance etc. That stuff is part and parcel of anyone who enter politics. I care about how much of my paycheck she is going to let me keep, what kind of additional social engineering does she want to do? She may think it takes a village to raise a kid but in my own Private Idaho it takes a mom and dad.

I'm pretty sure that, should the Democrats nominate Hillary! she won't be running against President Bush, since he's constitutionally unable to run.

I'm also pretty sure that President Bush has met with the family members of virtually every solder killed in the war, but that Hillary has not. So, just on the face of it, I'm not buying that vets are "invisible" to "this President."

If you're a working mom, and you're looking for affordable child care ... why are you looking to the government to provide that to you? When did it become the job of the federal government to ensure "affordable child care?"

Is Hillary promising minimum-wage child care workers? If you're a single mom and "struggling to find affordable child-care so you can go to work," I'm betting you wish your taxes weren't so high that you have to work to make ends meet and you could spend that time instead raising your children - and not trying to find the low bidder to do it.

And what struggling family in America doesn't have "health care?" Everyone in America, even illegal immigrants, have health care. Does she mean "health insurance?" Health insurance isn't health care ... it's insurance. And the primary beneficiaries of insurance are huge pharmaceutical companies and insurance agents who get a commission selling insurance.

And yes, that fake Southern accent isn't gonna carry the South. We know she's faking it; and it repulses us every time she does it.

Interesting. Here we were having a nice chat about NOT Hillary and you pop in to tell us to stop focusing on her. I WANT to be invisible to the government, especially if she is in charge. And my paycheck too.

When this op-ed was featured on this blog, Ann also quoted Hinderaker/Powerline saying:

"these are basically the same observations that most visitors to Iraq have made lately. Yet, some think this piece is significant, because of who wrote it--two liberals from Brookings--and the fact that it appeared in the Times....My fear, though, is that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons."

And then herself said:

"I will not succumb to this fear, which depends on the belief that the Democrats are evil. I do fear, however, that those who are politically committed to ending the war will resist evidence of good news, that it will take an unusually strong dose of good news to see good news as good news."

Now, slowly, understand:

This was framed as 1) liberals giving "good news" about Iraq, in the Times, no less!

and

2) if this news is resisted, it must mean that the Democrats are "evil" and politically "committed to defeat."

The fact that this op-ed was actually neither from liberals or Bush critics, or even "good news," or even a fair semblance of the events on the ground in Iraq gives you reason why it spawned such a reaction. It was fraudulently pumped up for the political purposes of the right wing, if only for a brief moment, in a tiny spot in the blogosphere.

It turns out to have been an army-guided tour from start to finish. In a political world that valued honesty, the reputations of both men would now be smoking rubble; for it is plain that neither, going into the trip, possessed the slightest local knowledge of Iraq beyond that of a citizen of average diligence.

The questions they posed to army officers and their Iraqi adjuncts, plus a few "safe" civilian informants lined up by the Department of Defense, all took the form: "So how are things going? Do you believe things are really improving?" A probing follow-up (according to O'Hanlon) took the more stringent form: "Are you really sure?"

The fact that this op-ed was actually neither from liberals or Bush critics, or even "good news," or even a fair semblance of the events on the ground in Iraq gives you reason why it spawned such a reaction.

See, this is what I was talking about earlier -- about the leftie one-drop rule and the failure to recognize anything more sensible than "Bush=Hitler" as criticism of Bush.

Both men work for the liberal Brookings Institution, which is run by a former reporter for Time Magazine who served as Bill Clinton's secretary of state. O'Hanlon in particular is a well-known Democratic Party advisor on military matters. So yes, the two men are liberals. They just aren't mindlessly anti-war like much of the Left -- like the Clintons, they supported the Iraq war and have now (in O'Hanlon's case, at least) come to regret having done so.

As for your ridiculous claim that they weren't Bush critics -- read the interview you quoted out of context earlier. I linked to it. O'Hanlon provides mountains of citations for his past criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

Ah, yes, LOS returns, fresh and rested, reminding us all instantly what steaming hot piles of intestine and waste offal from slaughtered beef cattle are like up close. A truly valuable service, sir. Hats off to you!

I want to add, that although these candidates may make me 'feel' invisible...this is not to suggest that I am or am not inconsequential to them. I have no idea how they actually feel about the average citizen.

For example, Ann highlighted an enounter Romney had with a waitress in New Hampshire. In that video Romney appeared detached, wooden, and seemed to use the patrons and employees of the diner as props. Interestingly though, of any of the republican candidates, he actually enacted a healthcare initiative in Mass. that could meet the health care needs of the working class individual, represented by that waitress (I can't say for sure since I don't know the details of Romney's plan....it has come under some criticism of late). So, even though Romney's behavior seems especially detached and hypercontrived, he may actually have a 'feel' for the 'average' american and want to serve them.

Then again, he may be quite calculating and perceive everyone (including his own children) predominantly as pawns in the service of his own ambitions. As Ann pointed out, Romney may prove more successful in his quest for the presidency if he can move us beyond the impression that he views himself and the electorate as attractive, yet empty, containers.

Come on folks--its a political ad; not a metaphysical treatise on death and resurrection. It's been focus-grouped and aimed at a particular demographic. You may not like it, or find it silly, but presumably it resonates with some slice of the electorate. If we are going to spend time analyzing these ads now, there are 15 months to go before the general. Let Hillary run against President Bush--I think thats a tactical error, but time will tell. I agree with Madison Man. Also agree with Jim Rhoades re Hillary--she is the only democratic candidate that I would consider voting for in the general, depending on whom the repubicans nominate.

You're still missing the point, but then, that's to be expected here. Besides, this is meant for Ann and the usual chorus that jump to defend Bush's war, despite all evidence to the contrary. Which is why they were all over this op-ed, written by this man.

O'Hanlon was, from the beginning, a boisterous supporter of the invasion of Iraq. While he debated what the optimal war strategy was, once it became clear exactly what strategy Bush would use, O'Hanlon believed -- and forcefully argued -- that George Bush was doing the right thing by invading Iraq:

"As you rightly reported -- I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter."

You claimed that the authors were neither liberals nor critics of Bush. Now that it has been proven that both of your claims were lies you are moving the goalposts and arguing that they weren't opponents of the war itself. Well, argue away, but since neither they nor Ann claimed that they were opponents of the war your complaints have no relevance here.

What will be the reason to ignore this article?http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,499154,00.html

Rcocean-my apologizes. Please state what you find interesting and should be allowed to converse about and I will modify accordingly. I was under the mistaken impression that Ann ran this blog. It's all about you. Deeply sorry.

Mindsteps: I PLAN on voting for someone else. I really don't want a surrogate father or mother for president.

Mindsteps: I PLAN on voting for someone else. I really don't want a surrogate father or mother for president.

Exactly. One of the creepiest things I remember from one of BJ Clintons town hall meetings was some ponytailed guy looking like a sad Starbucks barrista was going on about wanting Clinton to be his "daddy".

There are 300 million Americans. Assuming 8 hours of sleep per night, a two-term American President spends 170 million seconds awake in office -- i.e., roughly half a second for every person in the country. Anyone who expects a President to even become *aware* of his existence and perspective, let alone respect it, either hasn't done the math or is possessed of an enormous ego.

Presidents have to be "big picture" people -- the country is too large for them to be anything else. The desire for personal attention makes sense when you consider that we evolved in small communities where the leaders really could, and did, know everyone, but in a modern environment it is completely irrational.

Following on Rev's comment: That's why "invisibility" is such a good thing. The state can't possibly recognize us all. Even the oft-praised invisible hands of the market do a piss-poor job--just better than any central planning committee.

And besides, if you want to be visible to the current administration, just dial-up a terrorist in Afghanistan....

(TIC, of course, but "visibility" is contrary to "privacy", which is currently supposed to be very important to many of Hillary's supporters.)

I believe it has more to do with how a president or leader communicates to the entire nation their understanding and acceptance of divergent points of view. Maybe it has to do with one's capacity to communicate an open mind.

The polarizing, us vs. them, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, patriotic vs. traitor, spiritual vs. godless, your either with me or against me dichotomous positions end up creating an atmosphere of exclusion and blind obedience. Clinton and his administration did it and passed the torch on to Bush/Rove.

I am not religious for example, yet I perceive Huckabee doing a decent job of not demonizing those who hold different points of view. Up until his current run for President, I believe McCain did a decent job of it as well. I have a similar reaction to Bill Richardson when he speaks.

Obviously, it is not necessarily the most important characteristic of a president, but it is an attitude that seems to encourage freedom of thought and the recognition that more than one right answer can co-exist.

I think you're using a definition of "invisible" which is radically different from the one Clinton is using. Clinton's peddling the old bullshit line about how she'll provide personal attention and care about the little guy. She cannot, and will not, do that.

You're using "invisible" to mean "viewed by one side or the other as being a bad person", which isn't any definition of the term I've ever heard used before. Don't they by definition have to notice you exist in order to do that sort of thing? I'm also really unclear on how the heck *McCain* winds up on a list of politicians who don't view the world in an us vs. them manner -- he is much more hostile to people who disagree with him than George Bush or either of the Clintons. "Freedom of thought"? He's made it quite clear that it's his way or the highway!

I think you're using a definition of "invisible" which is radically different from the one Clinton is using. Clinton's peddling the old bullshit line about how she'll provide personal attention and care about the little guy.

You may be right. By invisible, I don't simply mean viewing the other side as a bad person...although to view someone else as bad or invisible is devalue the validity of certain people and their needs, interests, concerns, wants, or values.

And....I have heard about McCain's temper and aggressiveness it makes me have reservations about him. At the same time, he has also demonstrated profound levels of open mindedness in terms of how he has handled his Viet Nam experiences and how he treats viet nam vets who have taken vastly different stands on their experiences in the war.

Finally, while I believe that Clinton in her ad effectively targeted the experiences of a disaffected segements of the public during this administration I tend to see similarities between her and Romney (although he has a less strident style). Both seem ready to use the 'little guy' to get elected, not recognize and value him or her.